Re: Infrastructural complexity.

From:

Lennart Borgman

Subject:

Re: Infrastructural complexity.

Date:

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:48:49 +0200

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Thomas Lord<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> One large difference, though, is that framelets really require
> more changes to the C code of Emacs while window groups can
> get away with little or 0 changes to the C code. From some of the
> conversation, I suspect that this is one of the big reasons that
> there is support for window groups. I sympathize with that
> but I think that the proposed complexity in core lisp code
> is sufficiently problematic that it's at the very least not
> an obviously good idea to go with window groups.
Just a note of clarification. The idea of framelets was yours, but I
adopted the term and use it a bit differently.
I am unfortunately unable to understand the details of your
suggestion. By that I do not want to say it is good, I am just not
sure I understand it.
You restrict it to four framelettes in a frame. I am guessing that
this is because this will be easy to recognize, but I am not sure.
My suggestion is that any window could act as a kind of framelet. This
means basically that
- Windows inside it forms a window group.
- Frame-related commands (C-x 1, etc) commands work inside the framelet.
- It should visually clear that it is a framelet.
>From Martins reply it seems clear that my view of a framelet is the
same as what he calls a window group.